Apple CEO Tim Cook agrees to testify in House antitrust investigation

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2020
Apple CEO Tim Cook has agreed to participate in U.S. House Judiciary Committee antitrust probe, making him the last chief executive of four big tech companies targeted in the investigation to signal intent to yield testimony.




House antitrust panel chair Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) confirmed Cook's involvement to Kara Swisher, who shared the news in a tweet Wednesday.

Details of the coming session, and Cook's role in the proceedings, are unknown beyond a hearing date set for July.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai committed to testify before lawmakers in June, though they conditioned their participation on the appearance of other executives involved in the inquiry. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is also expected to testify after being threatened with a subpoena.

The House Antitrust Subcommittee last year announced a bipartisan investigation into "platform gatekeepers" and "dominant" tech firms. Apple is being scrutinized for its App Store business, so-called "Sherlocking" of third-party apps and systematic removal of parental control apps.

While Bezos, Pichai and Zuckerberg each signaled intent to participate in the House inquiry last month, Apple remained mum on Cook's potential involvement.

In a recent interview with Bloomberg, Cicilline said he expected the executives to offer testimony on their own accord, but cautioned the committee would issue subpoenas if needed.

"We are going to get the documents and the witnesses we need to complete the investigation," Cicilline said in late June. "It is my hope that that will happen voluntarily, but it has always been the intention of the committee that if it does not happen voluntarily, that we will rely on compulsory process to do so."

Cicilline has been an outspoken critic of dominant Silicon Valley players and is among a cadre of proponents of legal initiatives that would break up big companies. Apple's App Store business is a major concern for the representative. In interviews last month, Cicilline called compulsory App Store fees "highway robbery" and likened the policy as "ransom" for access to the popular app marketplace.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 629member
    They must want some of the money.
    cornchip
  • Reply 2 of 11
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member
    This really wasn’t the scandal some press outlets made it out to be - you’d have to be a fool to not understand why Cook didn’t want to testify earlier.
    tmayaderutter
  • Reply 3 of 11
    Legislation is a better route than antitrust lawsuits. Antitrust doesn't really apply to a lot of it. However, some of the things they're talking about are standard practice in the general retail business, not exclusive to tech companies. If they decide to tackle issues like percentage cuts to store owners as being unfair, then they're going to need a much broader bill. It will be interesting to see what the hearings are like. The cut part of it may not even turn out to be much of a focus, despite all the hoopla.
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 4 of 11
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    I'm lookin forward to hearing what Tim Cook has to say.  I think he has a lot of respect and carries some weight and cred.  
    cornchip
  • Reply 5 of 11
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    The bozos will grandstand. And he'll say nothing.

    I'll skip C-SPAN on that day.
    SpamSandwichallmypeople
  • Reply 6 of 11
    kkqd1337kkqd1337 Posts: 424member
    Zuckerberg Is the only one at risk here because he’s a total amateur.  

    Cook and Pichai are both expert CEOs who will have no problem choosing their words very carefully under pressure. They can and will run rings round them.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 7 of 11
    Legislators just want a bigger slice of the pie, and are fishing for justification.  If they don't find any justification, they'll just make something up.

    A lawyer friend of mine claims that the Sherman Anti-Trust act is so broad, and in some cases contradictory, that the government can justify prosecuting almost any company in America with something from it, no matter how hard the company tries to obey.  It's a hammer the government uses to threaten companies.
    jony0cornchip
  • Reply 8 of 11
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Legislators just want a bigger slice of the pie, and are fishing for justification.  If they don't find any justification, they'll just make something up.

    A lawyer friend of mine claims that the Sherman Anti-Trust act is so broad, and in some cases contradictory, that the government can justify prosecuting almost any company in America with something from it, no matter how hard the company tries to obey.  It's a hammer the government uses to threaten companies.
    That’s why all antitrust and monopoly laws should be struck down, along with restrictions on competition. When an actual free market exists, monopolies are impossible.
    beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 9 of 11
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in any arena. Even if they did, monopolies aren’t inherently evil. 

    It’s gatekeeper role via the App Store is reasonless. Who gets blamed if a rogue app loses data, invades your privacy, or shuts down your iOS device? Apple does. 30% is also reasonable as software dev isn’t free. Servers aren’t free. Bandwidth isn’t free. CC processing isn’t free. Security isn’t free. It also subsidizes the free apps. If it’s too low, say goodbye to free apps. 

    Sherlocking is a joke. Thousands of Apple software engineers are working on improvements to ios / Mac OS all the time. You think you’re the only one that thought to create a “feature” to fill in a gap? 
    jony0JinTechleavingthebigg
  • Reply 10 of 11
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    jungmark said:
    Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in any arena. Even if they did, monopolies aren’t inherently evil. 

    It’s gatekeeper role via the App Store is reasonless. Who gets blamed if a rogue app loses data, invades your privacy, or shuts down your iOS device? Apple does. 30% is also reasonable as software dev isn’t free. Servers aren’t free. Bandwidth isn’t free. CC processing isn’t free. Security isn’t free. It also subsidizes the free apps. If it’s too low, say goodbye to free apps. 

    Sherlocking is a joke. Thousands of Apple software engineers are working on improvements to ios / Mac OS all the time. You think you’re the only one that thought to create a “feature” to fill in a gap? 
    The financial punishment of Apple for their imaginary e-book “monopoly” was the ultimate insult. Apple needs better lobbyists and better lawyers.
    cornchipjony0
  • Reply 11 of 11
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    This really wasn’t the scandal some press outlets made it out to be - you’d have to be a fool to not understand why Cook didn’t want to testify earlier.
    The hearing will be a political dog and pony show. After all this is an election year. There will be 'gotcha' questions galore like, "Mr. Cook, when did you start beating your life partner?" The good thinning is the CEOs being called to testify are all vastly more intelligent than the dirtbags who will be doing the questioning.
    edited July 2020 cornchipjony0
Sign In or Register to comment.